A call to lower the drinking age
Amen.
Public policy often illustrates the law of unintended consequences. Societys complexity — multiple variables with myriad connections — often causes the consequences of a policy to be contrary to, and larger than, the intended ones. So, when assessing government actions, one should be receptive to counterintuitive ideas. One such is John McCardells theory that a way to lower the incidence of illness, mayhem and death from alcohol abuse by young people is to lower the drinking age.
McCardell, 57, president emeritus of Middlebury College in Vermont and professor of history there, says alcohol is and always will be a reality in the lives of 18-, 19- and 20-year-olds. Studies indicate that the number of college students who drink is slightly smaller than it was 10 years ago, largely because of increased interest in healthy living. But in the majority who choose to drink, there have been increases of binge drinking and other excesses. Hospitalizations of 18- to 20-year-olds for alcohol poisoning have risen in those 10 years.
This, McCardell believes, is partly because the drinking age of 21 has moved drinking to settings away from parental instruction and supervision. Among college students, drinking has gone off campus and underground, increasing risks while decreasing institutions abilities to manage the risks.
Kids drink because the allure of doing something that they’re not supposed to do is strong. I’ve never understood the thought process behind denying legal access to alcohol until the very arbitrary age of 21. If the government deems you fit enough to decide to get married or die in a war then they should trust you to drink a beer.
Growing up in a military town I had many friends who resided overseas in places where there were minimal age restrictions, mainly in Germany. Once back in the States those kids were not as susceptible to the siren song of alcohol because they had the opportunity to drink responsibly.
Print This Post
